LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY
Department of Management & Economics
Master of Social Sciences in International & European Relations Masters Thesis
Thesis supervisor: Prof. Geoffrey D. Gooch.
THE ROLE SCENARIOS OF EU
IN THE WORLD OF 2020
-
A comparative perspective between European and US based think tanksCo-Authoring: Hameed Ahmed
& Ye Xiaohong
Avdelning, Institution Division, Department Ekonomiska institutionen 581 83 LINKÖPING Datum Date 2005-02-15 Språk Language Rapporttyp Report category ISBN Svenska/Swedish X Engelska/English Licentiatavhandling
Examensarbete ISRN LIU-EKI/INT-D--05/017--SE
C-uppsats
X D-uppsats Serietitel och serienummer
Title of series, numbering
ISSN
Övrig rapport
____
URL för elektronisk version
http://www.ep.liu.se/exjobb/eki/2005/impier/017/
Titel Title
The Role Scenarios of EU in the World of 2020 - a Comparative Perspective Between European and US based Think Tanks.
Författare Author
Hameed Ahmed & Ye Xiaohong
Sammanfattning Abstract
This paper aims to tell out a “what next” question of the future scenarios that the European Union (EU), as a security community, is most likely to face in its development as a world power up to the year 2020. The EU is a rapidly evolving concept consolidating with comprehensive internal and external dimension and implication. Key concepts such as power, security, global governance and international order have been used as the underlying themes that will determine the course of the future. In this context Neo-realism, Constructivism and Security Community’s model have been used as the theoretical framework to examine how EU’s role in the international system can be analyzed in the conceptual framework of security. This is followed by a discussion on the concurrent ESDP instruments initiated by the new Constitution as a key momentum of security community buildup internally. To broaden understanding and to get a variety of perspectives, research reports and policy papers of some transatlantic think tanks were analyzed. While multi- perspectives of some prominent think tanks were reviewed, analyzed and discussed, the opinions of policy makers at the United Nations Head Quarters, New York, were also explored to reflect on how EU’s role in international affairs is being perceived in the corridors of power, both concurrently and futuristically. These views were consequently augmented by attending General Assembly and Security Council sessions during September 2004 to January 2005 to observe what sorts of power and influence EU exerts in the contemporary international system and what potential it has for the future. Based on these findings, the paper identified
three scenarios that EU is most likely to face in its efforts to be an international power. The paper concluded with the understanding that EU has vision and potential to be a power in the international system futuristically, which can be further enhanced if EU enhances its military capabilities and improves its power perception in the eyes of various stakeholders. However since the international system is volatile, its future role cannot be predicted with accuracy, only alternative options can be identified. EU’s roles are dependent upon the degree of success of the integration process internally and the structural interaction with other major actors in the international system. Whereas EU may enhance its role up to the year 2020, it may not enter into a power conflict with other major powers. However it will play its role comparable with the magnitude of its size, power and influence to manage the international system, futuristically in an improvised way.
Nyckelord Keyword
Role Scenarios, scenario analysis, security communities, think tanks, multilateral organizations, European Union.
Table of contents
Abstract...2 Table of contents ...4 Acknowledgement...7 List of abbreviations...8 List of figures ...9PART I GENERAL INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...101.1 Overview... 10
1.2 Delimitation ... 13
1.3 Research questions ... 15
1.4 Structure of The Paper... 15
1.5 Motivations and expected benefits of the Research ... 16
PART II THEORIES & METHODOLOGIES
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ...172.1 Method and Methodology ... 17
2.2 Qualitative Content Analysis... 18
2.3 Research Methods ... 19
2.3.1 Direct interview... 19
2.3.2 Secondary literature review... 20
2.3.3 Participant Observation... 20
2.3.4 Scenario Planning ... 21
2.4 Theoretical Literature Review... 23
2.5 Empirical Literature Review ... 23
CHAPTER 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...25
3.1 Neo-realism... 25
3.1.1 Structure (anarchy)... 26
3.1.2 Balance of Power ... 26
3.1.3 Power ... 26
3.2 Social Constructivism ... 28
3.2.1 Criticism of Constructivism ... 30
3.3 Security Communities... 31
3.3.1 what is Security? ... 31
3.3.2 what is Security Complex ... 32
3.3.3 what is Security Community? ... 32
3.3.4 Logic of Community... 34
3.3.5 How Security Communities Develop?... 34
3.3.6 Criticism of Security Communities Framework ... 36
3.4 Theoretical Reflexivity: Sociological Institutionalism Works?... 37
3.5 Theoretical Conclusion ... 39
PART III EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 4. A KEY MOMENTUM OF SECURITY COMMUNITY BUILDING, THE INITIATIVES FROM THE NEW CONSTITUTION ...424.1 The New Constitutional Treaty ... 42
4.2 Enabling Articles for CFSP... 43
4.3 CFSP ... 44
4.4 ESDP... 46
CHAPTER 5: POWER AND SECURITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT OF EU ...48
5.1 Security ... 48
5.2 Power ... 49
5.3 Multilateral Organizations as example of security community... 52
5.4 Foreign Policy and Security Community ... 53
5.5 Security community and Volatile Situation Internationally ... 53
5.5.1 The need to share global responsibility of peace, security and development... 54
5.5.2 Iraq War Split ... 54
5.5.3 Crisis in The Balkans ... 55
5.6 Security council/UN Reforms ... 55
5.7 Changing Perceptions of US ... 56
CHAPTER 6 FUTURE SCENARIOS OF EU PERCEIVED BY THINK TANKS ..59
6.1 Think tank, scenarios and theoretical framework ... 59
6.1.1 Agenda-setting ... 60
6.1.3 Policy network ... 62
6.2 CIA Scenarios ... 63
6.3 EU Scenarios... 65
6.3.1 When globalization is moving on at an increased pace (inclusive globalization) ... 67
6.3.2 Post-Polar World ... 75
6.4 Summary ... 81
CHAPTER 7 DIRECT INTERVIEWS ...82
7.1 Pakistan ... 82
7.2 Interview with member of EU Parliament ... 85
7.3 Interviews with Official of UNCTAD... 86
7.4 Views from African region... 87
7.5 OIC (representing 54 Muslim countries) ... 88
CHAPTER 8 EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION AT THE UN ...90
8.1 Voting Resolution... 90
8.2 Disarmament ... 92
8.3 Culture for Peace... 92
8.4 Divide Within the EU... 92
8.5 Analysis from Empirics... 93
PART IV ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 9 OUR SCENARIOS ...959.1 Scenario 1: A Competitive Partner - ( recommended scenario) ... 96
9.2 Scenario 2: Disintegration and Failed Expecations... 98
9.3 Scenario 3: great power conflict ... 101
9.4 What EU should do? ... 103
9.5 Anticipated challenges ... 104
CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSION ...105
BIBLIORGRAPHY ... 112
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
For the completion of this Masters thesis, we wish to express our deepest gratitude to Professor Geoffrey D. Gooch, our thesis coordinator and Program Director for International and European Relations course at Linkoping University, Sweden. His guidance played a pivotal role in the accomplishment of our research objectives. And gratitude also goes to Kerstin Karlsson who showed us great support in coordinating our progressing of thesis.
We wish to thank all those officials, writers, researchers whose prior as well as coordinating efforts, enabled us to develop the structure of our thesis. All of their names cannot be acknowledged specifically owing to space and word constraints.
Finally we also wish to show gratitude to each other for all the hardship and momentum we get across together. We’ve built friendship as two complete strangers not only by geographical intimacy but also through our arduous teamwork and earnest communication without any reservation.
Hameed Ahmed & Ye Xiaohong Linköping
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BBC British Broadcasting Corporation
BMD Ballistic Missile Defense
CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy
CNN Cable News Network
EC European Commission
ECOSOC Economic and Social Council
EP European Parliament
ERRF European Rapid Reaction Force
ESDP European Security and Defense Policy
EU European Union
GA General Assembly of the United Nations
HAARP High Frequency Active Aurora Ionospheric Research Program
IRT International Relations Theory
ISAF International Security Assistance Force
KFOR Kosovo Force
MINURSO United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara MINUSTAH United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti
MONUC United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
ONUB United Nations Operation in Burundi
OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
PKO Peace Keeping Operations
PSO Peace Support Operations
SC Security Council of the United Nations
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNAMA United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan UNAMI United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq
UNDOF United Nations Disengagement Observer Force UNFICYP United Nations Peace Keeping Force in Cyprus UNIFIL United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon UNMEE United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea UNMIK United Nations Mission in Kosovo
UNMIL United Nations Mission in Liberia
UNMISET United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor
UNMOGIP United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan UNOCI United Nations Operation in Cote d’Ivoire
UNOMIG United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia UNTSO United Nations Truce Supervision Organization
USA United States of America
WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.3.3 Figure 1. Four Forms of Ethnography 20
2.3.3 Figure 2. Role of researcher 20
2.3.4 Figure 3. Structuring Scenario Stories 22
2.3.4 Figure 4. A framework for outside-in thinking 23 3.2 Figure 5. A Social Constructivism Model of the Multiple
Realization of International Culture 30 3.3.5 Figure 6. The development of security communities 36
3.4 Figure 7. The three new institutionalisms 39
5.5 Figure 8 Country’s decision about
use of Force in Iraq war 55
5.7 Figure 9 US-European Diplomatic and Security Ties 57 5.7 Figure 10 Favorable view of the US 57
6.1.1 Figure 11 Comparison of policy process 61
6.3.1 Figure 12 Map of UN Peacekeeping Operations 68 6.3.2 Figure 13 Whether EU must adopt a constitution? 80 8.1 Figure 14 Table depicting voting pattern of EU at the UN 91 9.0 Figure 15 Identify the three models of EU’s role scenarios
to the year 2020, based on Wendt’s model
of ‘the multiple realization of international culture 95 9.1 Figure 16 Scenario 1, competition with other powers 96 9.2 Figure 17 Scenario 2, disintegration & failed expectation 98
PART I GENERAL INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview
“A day will come when all the nations of this continent, without losing their distinct qualities or their glorious individuality, will fuse together in a higher unity and form the European brotherhood. A day will come when there will be no other battlefields than those of the mind - open marketplaces for ideas. A day will come when bullets and bombs will be replaced by votes”. – (Victor Hugo, 1849).1
At no point in the history the stability and character of the international system are so deeply affected by what happens in Europe.2 EU of today holds a center stage in the current international affairs. It is committed to share its global responsibilities in preventing conflicts, promoting justice and equity, peace harmonization and to play an effective role in combating terrorism, proliferation of WMDs, and in securing the international system.3 It also has the vision to play an equally effective role in promoting socio-economic development, poverty alleviaton, sustainaible development, enviornmental protection and to promote strong European values in the international system. In the words of Chris Patten, “European Union is a major international force. Its member countries and citizens must accept the responsibilites that come with that status.”4
The recently renewed interest in the Constitution has aroused a new debate about the “New Europe” and “Europe future”. The consideration of putting Europe in the international security order is both classical and pragmatic. It is interesting to address the
1 [Internet] Europe in 12 lessons. Retrieved from http://europa.eu.int/abc/12lessons/index_en.htm. Accessed Dec 20, 2004.
2 Buzan B. (1990). The European Security Order Forecast, Scenarios for the Post-cold War Era. The Centre for Peace and Conflict Research, University of Copenhagen. London: Printer Publishers. P. 10-12.
3 [Internet]. EU Takes Major Expansion Step. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2954413.stm. accesseed Dec20, 2004.
4 Patten C., “ The European Union and the World”, Europe in the New Century, Visions of an Emerging Superpower, edited by Guttman R.J., Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., Colorado, USA. P. 89.
question in the paper, about how EU’s contemporary Constitution-making moment will impact upon the international structure, and how will the internal and external environment of European Integration influence the EU’s role in the world during the first twenty years of the new Millennium.
It is just too dogmatic to study EU affairs within the confine of EU territory; neither is it effective to apply any International Relation theory as a single plot to replace everything empirical. In trying to spell out the way in which an ambiguous concept orients perceptions of basic factors like the anarchy and the arms race, one relies on broad impressions of large and diverse literatures. 5 The attempt to generalize is in permanent risk of tipping into caricature.6 Without rejecting the complexity and uncertainty, however in a US-dominated unipolar system, it is fascinating to explore the possible opt-ins and opt-outs of what would happen, and what would not, in the next decade.
The Present International System
The present international system is a unipolar system, with USA serving as its driving force and as a global policing authority. Multilateralism, Bretton Woods institutions and an unparalleled military strength, is undoubtedly the driving force behind the current international system with small powers like EU, China, Russia, for taking up small roles. While EU may not have intention to initiate a great power conflict or an arms race7 – thus avoiding the re-initiation of the Cold War in a totally different form – however as argued by Shepherd & Salmon, it may have the potential to be an indirect power balancer in the international system, (a gap left after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s) to reduce the perceptions of a unipolar world and to serve as neutral power broker in conflicts.8 However, a great power conflict is highly unlikely in the forseeable future as none of the other powers have the required political, military, economic and socio-cultural strength to match the might of the USA.
5 Buzan Barry. Peace, Power and Security: Contending Concepts in the Study of International Relations. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 21, No.2, 1984. P.109-125.
6 Ibid. P. 109-125. 7 Pattern C. (19…). P.79.
8 Shepherd A.J.K & Salmon T.C (2003). “The EU Security and Defence Policy: Why it is important?” in Toward a
The Unique EU
EU offers an unique case study. This integration amongst former conflicting countries and bitter foes has brought together centuries of rivalry converged together towards common interest. Not only is the augmented EU the world’s largest trading unit, it is the richest commercial bloc and (with its member states) the largest provider of development aid to the rest of the world.9 Through integration of 25 member states, the EU community has formed a wider economic union, with stronger political objectives needed. The transition from European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) of 1951 comprising of initial 6 members – to – European Union comprising of 25 members in 2004 has been a unique case study.
The Need for Reform in International System and the Desire for an Alternative Power
There is a need for system reform. Presently there is growing skepticism about US policies, particularly with reference to Afghanistan and Iraq wherein international law was violated in complete contravention to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and pre-emptive strikes were carried out. US’s pro-Israel policies have also resulted in growing discontent amongst the Islamic world who fear that US is playing a pivotal role in arming anti-Islamic countries; while in the meantime disarming Islamic nations or by engaging them in prolonged conflicts, de-estabilizing their economy and governments, promoting anti-state factors and rebellion – thereby advocating the necessity for regime change. The international scenario has taken a completely new turn after Sep.11 attacks in USA. New alliances have been formed while effectivity of existing multilateral structure has come under heavy criticism from all quarters.
Moving Forward Through Multilateralism
A way forward to handle issues confronting the international community would be of “cooperative multilateralism”10- but in its cloak will lie the emergence of a multipolar
9 White Brian (2001). Understanding European Foreign Policy. Hampshire: Palgrave. P. 28.
10 Speech delivered by Representative of Pakistan during 59th Annual Session of the General Assembly on 22-11-2004 at New York, USA on the topic “Integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields, and Follow up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit”.p-2. Available in UN library archives. [Internet]. UN webcast. Retrieved from
system which will be developed as a result of growing unsatisfactory sentiment amongst the world population which feels that todays international system is all about great power politics where might is always right and where justice is denied.11
The need for an alternate power to manage the global affairs wisely and in a judicious manner is further strengthened with the emergence of - multilateral trading system of WTO, rapid globalization, technological advancement, growing north-south gap, global menace of terrorism, proliferation of WMDs, spread of diseases like HIV / AIDS, and environmental degradation – to name a few.12
1.2 Delimitation
The focus in our study is to address the question as to how EU, as an expanding security community, would finally be demarcated into world politics with the space and power instituted in a certain configuration and what sort of future scenarios will it most likely face in a rapidly changing international system where globalization, response of various actors and conflicts are the key driving forces. For the study, we shed light on the most updated event, European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) innovation initiated by Constitutional Treaty, against the background of the successful enlargement of ten Central and East European States. The paper also delimited the study period from 2003 to 2020 so as to examine the possible and most updated development trend of process & outcome during a certain time span.
In a world of continuing diversity, mistrust, and uncertainty, however, it is likely that search for a more cooperative global society is likely to remain in conflict with the powerful pressures which exist for states, and wider communities, to look after their own
http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/59/statements/zimeng040928.pdf on Jan. 3, 2005
11 Speech delivered by Honorable President of Zimbabwe Mr. Robert Mugabe at the General Debate of the Heads of States and Heads of Governments during 59th Annual Session of the General Assembly on 22-09-2004 at New York, USA. [Internet]. UN webcast. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/59/statements/zimeng040922.pdf on Jan. 3, 2005.
12 C. Fred Bergsten. American and Europe: Clash of theTitans? Article reprinted from Foreign Affairs, March/April 1999, Volume 78, No. 2. Institute for International Economics [Internet]. Retrieved from
national and regional security against threats from without and within.13 We have developed the hypothesis that EU may have the intention to play its role in the world political affairs and to extend its influence across the globe. It may serve as a major power block in future with tendency to challenge US global hegemony in terms of economic, political and military influence and hence may serve as a balance of power to the US.14 To explore this hypothesis, we evaluate scenarios that EU is likely to face up to the year 2020 so that it may extend its Power and Influence on the global front. For this reason we focused on some of the scenarios that EU is most likely to confront. In this regard we have also compared the scenarios of some think tanks of EU and US so that we may be able to compare the thinking pattern of the two regions. The think tanks provide a glimpse of how a nation’s / region’s policies will be devised in the near future in light of how they preceive the future and how they think it will most likely turn out to be.
We also have explored the opinion of some of the policy makers at the United Nations Head Quarters, New York and also the opinion of office bearers of some of the multilateral organizations represented at the UN. We also attended General Assembly and Security Council sessions as well meetings of various other UN bodies to observe the influence of EU at multilateral level and its anticipated future role in this regard.
To make sense to Neorealism as well as security communities of the constructivist camp, we primarily focused on military (i.e. defence and security aspects ) scenario analysis, in light of on going globalization and used it as a benchmarking indicator to evaluate EU’s global power and influence.
13 Baylis John. Chapter 12, Internaitonal and global security in the post-cold war era. John Baylis & Steve Smith (2001). The Globalization of World Politics, an introduction to international relations. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P.274.
14 C. Fred Bergsten. American and Europe: Clash of theTitans? Article reprinted from Foreign Affairs, March/April 1999, Volume 78, No. 2. Institute for International Economics [Internet]. Retrieved from
1.3 Research questions:
During this thesis, we intended to explore the following questions:
1) How can EU’s integration process and its likely future scenarios can be explained from the perspectives of Neorealism, security community and social constructivist perspectives?
2) What are possible scenarios that EU is most likely to face with regards to security concept in a globalized world up to the year 2020?
3) How do transatlantic think tanks differ in their perspectives about EU’s future scenarios?
1.4 Structure of The Paper
The entire thesis is divided into four main portions.
Part I (Chapter 1) deals with the introduction of the paper regarding the brief introduction to the topic, an overview of the background, the research questions and motivation as well.
Part II (Chapter 2&3) presents theoretical framework of the paper. It also deals with the method and methodological matters and presents an overview of the concepts that have been used.
Part III (Chapter 4,5,6,7,8) presents an in-depth coverage of scenario analysis wherein the concepts of security, power, influence and security community were introduced in line with the theoretical framework and in the context of ESDP and the New Constitution. Subsequently, the perspectives of the transatlantic think tanks regarding future scenarios of EU have been compared and analysed.
Part IV (Chapter 9,10) is the conclusive part presenting our own scenarios and conclusion in light of the combined theoretical framework and empirical findings.
1.5 Motivations and expected benefits of the Research
Throughout the thesis, the authors intended to develop a comprehensive understanding of EU’s role in international affairs based upon how it is being perceived by various think tanks and policy makers. By integrating the concept of security communities, the authors intended to see if such a European experiment will be successful in terms of the regional integration concept which is being pursued by NAFTA, ASEAN, SAARC etc. It is expected that this thesis will contribute in future research on such related topics and within the domain of future studies in security communities.
PART II THEORIES & METHODOLOGIES
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
2.1 Method and Methodology
Method and methodology is the key language throughout the discussions of research. Bryman distinguished between methods (ways of gathering data) and methodologies (epistemological positions).15 A method is a particular tool to gather evidence about a phenomenon. These methods, including survey, interviews, and participant observation etc. in a “tool box”, can be combined and used in the many different approaches to research.
Methodology however is the entire approach to research. Harding (1987) defined methodology as “a theory and analysis of how research does or should proceed”16. Or it is understood as “the theory of knowledge and the interpretive framework that guide a particular research project”17. To put it simple, it is about what can be said from the data collected, or “what is the logic of justification, what is the nature of knower and knowledge, the nature of reality, and the nature of the inquiry come into play.”18
Based upon above assumptions, with a holistic view in mind, the authors employed pluralistic methodologies and multi-methods to handle the inquiry of EU project in the paper. The complexity, uncertainty and interdependence of EU policies have shaped the polity into a multilevel governance (MLG) mode. The polity can also be regarded as a disjointedly, incrementally integrating community. For the sake of the pluralistic agenda in both authoritative Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) and functionally powerful EU supranational institutions, policy interdependence, resources pooling and intensive interaction through (policy) networks have tamed the power to some extent in some time; however it is still useless to be assertive about the endpoint of EU in any possible way. As
15 Demarrais & Lapan (2004). Foundations for Research: methods of inquiry in education and the social science. Eds. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. P. 270.
16 Ibid. P.5. 17 Ibid. P. 208. 18 Ibid. P. 270.
Robert Cox argued, Foreign Policy analysis in such sense offers both “problem-solving”(positivist) and “critical” (post-positivist) theories.19
The authors have used multi-methods such as qualitative method (which include interview, participant observation, secondary literature review, data collection), scenario planning, policy analysis in the fieldwork of research. Multi-methods inquiry is useful in constructing validity. Knafl and Breitmayer indicated that the triangulation construct is used as “a metaphor to characterize the use of multiple methods to measure a single construct.”20 It also means this method is useful for abstracting empirics and cater to theoretical reflection. The triangulation involved the use of multiple methods in the study of the same phenomenon with the basic purpose being the goal of seeking construct validity through the establishment of both convergent and divergent evidence for the task of test under consideration that confirms expectation.21
To summarize, Multiple methods has following benefits to research as:
1. “It provides the opportunity to look for corroboration in the results from different methods. The aim should be to examine if and where evidence for corroboration exists;
2. It has potential to find complementarities;
3. It is used as a means of advancing a study or program of research, so that the result could help guide the development of the next phase of research, such as sampling, measurement or both;
4. There is the opportunity to use the results for expansion, both by breadth and depth; 5. It provides the opportunity to investigate potential paradoxes and contradictions that
emerge from the data.”22
2.2 Qualitative Content Analysis
Qualitative method talks. Qualitative method in international relations is prevalent, because understanding of social science, and international relations, is very perceptual. Traditionally debate between quantitative and qualitative research are based on
19 White, Brian (2001). P.176. 20 Demarrais&Lapan (2004). P.276. 21 Demarrais&Lapan (2004). P. 276-7. 22 Ibid. P. 279.
fundamentally different epistemology assumptions, and that making a choice commits you to a particular way of understanding social science, and studying human beings. 23 Different epistemological positions are ample in social science research, and quantitative method sometimes can be successfully combined into it as part of the research instrument. Qualitative method makes it possible for researchers to shed their own light onto the previous research agenda.
Qualitative content analysis is one prevalent framework of analyzing data. According to Bryman, qualitative content analysis is a strategy of searching for themes in texts.24 Alternatively, Altheide outlined an approach (refered to by him as Ethnographic Content Analysis - ECA) in that the researcher is constantly revising the themes or categories that are distilled from the examination of documents.25 According to ECA, many of the studies in the extracted process are implicit and based. With preliminary categorization in hand, the researchers move back and forth between “conceptualisation, data collection, analysis and interpretation” comprehensively. Content analysis will be used to analyse the official documents, reports and pronouncements to unravel the explicit as well as the implicit meaning of the texts regarding the policies and their orientation.
2.3 Research Methods 2.3.1 Direct interview
Researchers did direct interviews with:
1. Ambassadors/permanent representatives of certain randomly selected countries (convenience sampling) from some regions. Accessibility and willingness to interview and share opinions of the official concerned was the major criteria for carrying out the interviews.
2. Other officials in situations when ambassadors / PRs were not available.
3. Office bearers of multilateral and regional organizations also based on convenience sampling and with their willingness to be interviewed.
These interviews were informal and were open-end as it is hoped to explore diversity of
23 Travers Max (2001). Qualitative Research Through Case Studies. London: Sage. P. 6.
24 Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 381
opinions.
2.3.2 Secondary literature review
For this thesis, the writers explored the perspective of think tanks and research papers of policy institutes through a secondary research and qualitative content analysis in light of some of the contemporary discourse. They went through findings of various
• Think tanks
• Policy research institutes
• Government agencies
• Web pages of authentic sources
• Official reports of international and multilateral organizations
• Speeches delivered at UN and other international and multilateral bodies.
2.3.3 Participant Observation
It is fieldwork, which means observing while participating in events, or doing research on certain human behavior in its everyday context. This technique bears in mind with quite subjective perception. The nature and extent of participant observation can be classified into four types as following (see figure 1 & 2):
Figure 1. Four forms of ethnography
(Note: This figure is a development of a table in Bell 1969.)26 Open/Public setting Closed setting
Overt/explicit Role Type 1 Type 2
Covert/implicit Role Type 3 Type 4
Or as following:
Figure 2. Role of researcher Participant Participant as
observer
Observer as participant
Observer
Doing participant research entails the researcher to move along the continuum of role of researcher between the middle two types (participant as observer or observer as
26 Chapter 14, Ethnography and Participant Observation. Bryman Alan (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 293.
participant) during the data collection phase, and occasionally drop into the one of complete role positions (participant or observer). The internship in the U.N. may be allocated into a significant role in the highlighted frame: participant as observer, by bearing an open role in a public setting. The one-coauthor observed the influence of EU in various bodies of UN by directly participating in various meetings of UN bodies and committees such as General Assembly and Security Council, using the participant observation technique.
2.3.4 Scenario Planning
Scenario thinking can be a bridge communicating the present with the future path in a scientific way. Pierre Wack, the originator of scenario thinking as it is commonly used today, described it as a discipline for encouraging creative and entrepreneurial thinking and action “in contexts of accelerated change, greater complexity, and genuine uncertainty.”27
Scenario thinking entails building future environments in light of uncertainty. However it is perceptual and analysis is based upon how situation is perceived by the researchers in light of key driving elements. They are powerful planning tools presenting alternative images of the world rather than projecting prevalent trends and factors and assist in decision-making process.28 Therefore the typology of scenario thinking (See Figure 3.) includes the four inductive, deductive, normative and incremental methods. The paper has applied the most appropriate deductive method, since in the authors’ views, both EU’s internal and external environment is variable, the future role scenarios of EU internationally should be considered deductively.
27 [Internet] Overview of Scenario Thinking Concepts. In What If? The Art of Scenario Thinking for Nonprofits. Diana Scearce, Katherine Fulton. July 2004. Retrieved from http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=32655 on Nov22, 2004.
28 Future of US-Korean Relations: “Scenarios for the Future of US-North Korean Relations
Engagement, Containment, or Rollback?” Nautilus Institute. August 2002. [Internet]. Retrieved from
Figure 3. Structuring Scenario Stories 29
Scenario thinking accords to three guidelines: a long-term view, outside-in thinking (see figure 4.) and multiple perspectives30. The outside-in scenario thinking follows the road map of looking into driving forces in the contextual environment firstly, such as global liberal market, informational technology revolution, social chaos of national and ethnic conflicts, and environmental crisis as well as earnest pursuance for good governance, etc. Then the second layer comes the working environment such as the specific operational (institutional and administrative) settings as well as the social fabric and network.
Scenario thinking does not give proposition, nor raise prediction, however just present a future domino by deliberately formula that is mostly keen to author’s insight.
29 [Internet] Ged Davis. Vice President. Global Business Environment. Shell International Limited. Scenarios as a Tool
for the 21st Century. For Probing Future Conference, Strathclyde University. July 12, 2002. Retrieved from
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=royal-en&FC2=/royal-
en/html/iwgen/our_strategy/scenarios/building_and_using_scenarios/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/royal-en/html/iwgen/our_strategy/scenarios/building_and_using_scenarios/building_and_using_scenarios.html on Nov. 23, 2004.
30 [Internet] Overview of Scenario Thinking Concepts. In What If? The Art of Scenario Thinking for Nonprofits. Diana Scearce, Katherine Fulton. July 2004. Retrieved from http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=32655 on Nov22, 2004.
Figure 4. A framework for outside-in thinking31
2.4 Theoretical Literature Review
Waltz’s Theory of International Politics in 1979 has been the most popular doctrines of Neorealism disclosing interstates politics for international relations theorists in the last three decades. However Waltz’s Neorealism received challenges from Wendt’s Social Theory of International Politics in 1999, which claimed that international system is made up of not only material, but also social structure which include ideas, knowledge, culture and norms. Adler & Barnett’s Security Communities in 1998 refined a new theoretical framework for consideration of international security from a regional perspective, mostly positioning its theoretical roots in the constructivist camp. Warleigh Alex’s Understanding European Union Institutions systemically studied the institution set-up within EU both theoretically and empirically, which is regarded as a successful and unique character of EU’s security building practices.
2.5 Empirical Literature Review
Empirically the author mainly discussed analysis report on world security scenarios from two influential think tanks, European Institute of Security Studies and the Central
Intelligence of the United States of America, who published respectively two complementary policy papers, European Security Strategy in Dec 2003, European Defense, A proposal for a white paper, report of an independent task force in May 2004, and the Global Trend 2015: A Dialogue about the Future with Nongovernmental Experts in December 2000.
CHAPTER 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Since 1990s, Security Communities study has been an emerging area for both empiricists and theorists to shed light on traditional security politics, regionalism, post-cold war order, and globalization study. Security community provided a reflexive space for creating a stable order for those states that dwell in it, thus influencing the conception of hard security in international politics. Security community is also a most durable nutshell representing the vision of power politics through an image of mature anarchy32.
In the theoretical part, the thesis addressed the central question of whether there would be more or less security in the world, and why and how Neorealism and social constructivism mutually reinforce and reflect, pacify power politics. The thesis read security communities from perspectives of Neorealism and social constructivism, identified intervening parameters such as power, security, ideas, competing interests, institutionalization, etc in an analytical framework of security communities.
3.1 Neo-realism
Most contemporary academics refer to Waltz’s Theories of International Politics for definition of interstate politics, named either as Neo-realism or structural realism, with essential focus on power-oriented states seeking and maintaining survival (independence, sovereignty, and territory integrity) in the international system. By not rejecting Neorealism, Realism claimed that states are seen as rational, unitary actors that derive their interests from an evaluation of their position in the system of state.33 In the self-help anarchy, Neorealism reads the cooperation between states extremely fragile because of the jealously guarded self-interests of national governments, the lack of trust and commitment to each other, and the fear of more relative gains of the competing counter-parts.
32 Mature anarchy: “it is possible to ameliorate the security dilemma through greater cooperation between states by taking into account the interests of their neighbours when making their own policies. A process from fierce military rivalry to a security community.” Cited from John Baylis, International and Global Security, of Baylis John (2001). the
Globalization of World Politics. P.261.
3.1.1 Structure (anarchy)
Structure in Neorealism means “there is no central authority capable of controlling state behaviour”34. According to Waltz, structure is defined by the ordering principle of the international system, which is anarchy; and the distribution of capabilities across units, which are states.35 There is no differentiation of function between different units, or state actors. Therefore, states experience the same constraints by anarchy and strive to maintain their position in the system.
3.1.2 Balance of Power
David Hume called balance of power as “a constant rule of prudent politics”36, which then became one of the longest standing and most frequently used concepts in international politics. Waltz concurs with traditional realists when he states that the central mechanism for order in the system is balance of power.37 The theory makes assumptions about the interests and motives of states, rather than explaining them.38 Or the theory can explain some things, but not the same things, about behaviour and outcomes at both levels (national and international level).39 Balance of power, alliance, nuclear deterrence, disarmament, etc. are real politic ways to reduce threat of war. However balance of power should not be regarded as a prediction of policy, but more of a description of how power is distributed.40 In another words, the major concerns of world politics tend to arise from inequalities of power, and particularly from major changes in the unequal distribution of power.
3.1.3 Power
Neorealism is represented by three ‘S’: State, Self-help, and Survival, which underlies a major assumption of the characteristics and instrument of the central state agents: power
34 Baylis John. International and global security in the post-cold war era. John Baylis & Steve Smith (2001). P.257. 35 Steven L. Lamy. Contemporary mainstream approaches: Neorealism and Neoliberalism. John Baylis & Steve Smith (2001). P.185.
36 David Hume, “Of the Balance of Power” in Charles W. Hendel, ed., David Hume’s Political Essays (1742; reprint, Indianapolis, Ind.: obbs-Merrill, 1953), p.142-144.
37 Steven L. Lamy. Contemporary mainstream approaches: Neorealism and Neoliberalism. John Baylis & Steve Smith (2001). P.185.
38 Waltz (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw Hill. P.122. 39 Ibid. P.123.
is the “the combined capabilities of a state.”41 Herein security is a language of force and deterrence. States are differentiated in the system by their power and not by their function.42 Power gives a state a place or position in the international system and that shapes the states’s behavior.43 A state with more power would have more influence, although influence has gained more and more attention in the globalizing age. Neorealists are used to explain any differences in policy by differences in power or capabilities. In another word, states would react to anarchy according to the total sum of capabilities they accumulate, and accordingly evaluate its position in the system. Institutions from the perspective of power then underly the range of control and action of a self-interested state, hence its existence is quite subordinate to the motivation of states.
In conclusion, Neorealism thinks international politics is fundamentally conflictual in the long run since the structure of anarchy is durable. Therefore, seeking for security turns out to be the primary task of states, with anarchy and uncertainty easily causing security dilemma44.
3.1.4 Criticism of Neorealism
It is important to notice that while the self-help logic is attributing to systemic level of analysis, it fails in figuring out why the same form of state is differently structured and why the structure is valiantly related to various (state) agents in contemporary world politics. In other words, “Neorealism is a theory of why, in ‘international political’ society, the establishment of stable norms is either unlikely or impossible, why formal institutions do not develop meaningful autonomy, and therefore why a constitutional international regime is unimaginable.”45 In a word, Neorealism is biased in limiting what cannot happen in international structure, negatively; but weak in setting up what have already developed in formalities, positively.
41 Steven L. Lamy. Contemporary mainstream approaches: Neorealism and Neoliberalism. John Baylis & Steve Smith (2001). P.185.
42 Ibid. P. 185. 43 Ibid. P.185.
44 Security dilemma was first clearly articulated in the 1950s by John Herz: a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs, tend regardless of intention of lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and the measures of others as potentially threatening. Cited from Herz 1950. P.157.
In line with Neorealism, the end of cold war has brought about a major shift in the global balance of power.46 Realistically we also intend to explore as to how EU will exert its Power and Influence in a rapidly changing world. The international scenario is anarchic and is marked by volatility, power struggle, growing discontent amongst the masses in calling for a need of a “New World Order” with changed polarity in the system, rising terrorism, growing North-South gap etc. These are some of the reasons as to why there is a need / room for another power in the system which has the ability to exert its influence. Can EU respond to this need? What will be the likely scenarios that EU will face in its desire to be a global player?
At this point, we would mean that Neorealism model is quite ambiguous in state socialization of mistrust, miscalculation and uncertainty; the margin of self-defining position in foreign policy is thin, and “Waltz’s account of anarchy is not fully generative”47.
3.2 Social Constructivism
The Conventional Social Constructivism, as represented by Alexander Wendt in his Social Theory of International Politics, shared major Neorealism assumptions about international politics, such as anarchy, survive, rationality of state behavior, uncertain of intention, etc. Social Constructivism is concerned with the issue of whether state action is influenced more by system structure (neorealism) or by the processes, interactions, and learning of institutions (neoliberalism).48 The approach is useful since it raised a new inquiry about what and how the international system is made up of (both material and social structure); as well as who are the actors and what they do. Social structures are defined by shared understandings, expectations, or knowledge.49 Wendt held that, “the most important structures in which states are embedded are made of ideas, not material forces…Ideas determine the meaning and content of power, the strategies by which states
46 Ewan Harrison (2004). The Post-Cold War International System, Strategies, Institutions and Reflexivity. London: Routledge. P.112.
47 Ibid. P.33.
48 Chapter 6, Three Cultures of Anarchy. Of Wendt (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P.391.
pursue their interests, and interests themselves”50. Far from denying a reality to the material world, constructivism claims that how the material world shapes, changes, and affects human interaction, and is affected by it, depends on ‘prior and changing epistemic and normative interpretations of the material world (culture)’.51 So it is more important that to begin with a small number of big and important things about world politics we would do better to focus first on states’ ideas and the interests they constitute, and only then worry about who has how many guns.52
Wendt argued contrarily to neorealist claims that “self-help and power politics do not follow logically or causally from anarchy, and if today we find ourselves in a self-help world this is due to process, not structure.” 53Wendt takes interests and identities not as given (as Neorealism claims), but being formed in the process of interaction. In a certain society of given culture, identities causally generate specific interests of actor, and then the sum of identities and interests lead to specific action (or practices), which is labeled as structural effect.These social practices are capable of reproducing “the intersubjective meanings that constitute social structures and actors alike” and, most importantly, the capacity “to produce predictability and so, order.”54
Social Constructivism thinks the anarchy is what states make of it. In another words, the logics of anarchy are a function of how deeply culture is internalized. And which pathway to choose to realize a given anarchy is an empirical question (See Figure 5) which will be discussed in subsequent chapters of the paper. Culture is known as shared ideas in the social structure that has three distinct forms of anarchy: “Hobbesian, Lockean, and Kantian…based on three different role relationships, enemy, rivalry and friend.”55 A key aspect of culture form is its role structure, the configuration of subject positions that
50 Wendt (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P.309. 51 Adler and Barnett. Security Communities in theoretical perspectives. Adler E. & Barnett M. (1998). Security
Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P.13.
52 Wendt (1999). P.256.
53 Wendt, Alexander, “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics” in International
Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), 391-425.p. 394.
54 Hopf, Ted, “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory” in International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer, 1998), 171-200. pp. 177-178.
shared ideas make available to its holders.56 By subject positions Wendt means that “…constituted by representations of Self and Other as particular kinds of agents related in particular ways, which in turn constitute the logics and reproduction requirements of distinct cultural systems”.57 A role structure cannot be reduced to individuals since it underlies “collective representation, properties of macro-structure”. And a structure might not survive with no filled roles by states or non-state actors.
Figure 5. A Social Constructivism Model of the Multiple Realization of International Culture58
3rd 2nd
1st Enemy Rivalry Friend
Degree of Cultural Internalization
Hobbesian Lockean Kantian Degree of Society (Cooperation)
3.2.1 Criticism of Constructivism
The argument of Social constructivism claimed a bridge between two traditions: rationalism and reflectivism by developing views that liberal institutions can transform state identities and interests, which is extended into further discussion of and comparison with New Institutionalism (NI) in political science, a little beyond the discussion of the paper.
Rationalism such as Neorealism and Neoliberalism recognized the exogenous of identity, and Social Constructivism offered a possibility of identity transformation implicated by sociological institutionalism. While Social Constructivism is in accordance with major neorealism assumption such as state, survive, it diffused a possibility of violent change into process change, or as peaceful change.
The issue of identity touched by rational and reflexive camps has to be deliberated and
56 Wendt (1999). P.257. 57 Wendt (1999). P.257. 58 Wendt (1999). P. 254.
operationalized in stringent observance to current international affairs. The disputes in power of identity therefore shed a critical light to constructivism that theorists maybe have to rethink about the methodological, ontological and empirical ground which they are used to.
3.3 Security Communities
Since last decades of accelerating globalization and rationalization, the emerging of security communities shift more and more theorists’ interests to the configuration of conflict and co-operation which in a transformative manner shaped regional stability. Karl Deutsch, Buzan Barry, Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, Ole Waever are all important theorists who contributed to generate a framework of security communities, which hosts a comprehensive understanding of regional integration by incorporating traditional schools and innovative constructivism camp, adds a rich conceptual and definitional camp to international politics such as community, dependable expectation of peaceful change, governance and institutions, etc.; and broadens their analysis of interstate security and defense to a multi-dimension that includes security in military, economy, environment, politics and society.
3.3.1 what is Security?
International politics is fundamentally relational matters. As an ‘essentially contested concept’, security has its own form and expression in international politics. For Neorealism security is a language of power. For security communities it represents the logic of community. According to Wolfers, (traditional) security is a value “of which a nation can have more or less and which it can aspire to have in greater or lesser measure.”59 In the anarchy system, more security for one state would mean less for another. Hence here it is the so-called “zero sum game” from Neorealist perspective, especially in a two-polar system.
As Wolfers noted that, security can be approached both objectively (there is a real threat) and subjectively (there is a perceived threat) and that nothing ensures these two
approaches will line up. From above statement, it is found that security is an absolute concept, which cannot be achieved absolutely. Therefore in this section the author argues that, the essential quality of security “is a social area, a part of discursive, socially constituted, inter-subjective realm.”60
Furtherly, Buzan Barry raised a new framework of analysis – security, which attempted to examine variant logics of threat and vulnerability in different sectors with a broadened and holistic dimension of relevant factors leading to securitization. Attributed to the widening concept of security, it is open to different types of threats, both military and non-military (such as economically, socially, politically and environmentally). The new framework aims to build coherence not by deviating from traditionalists’ approach with the core of military and force, but “exploring the logic of security itself to find out what differentiates security and the process of securitization from that which is merely political.”61
3.3.2 what is Security Complex
Security complex is in this sense a concept defining regional situation as, a group of units within which the main process of securitization or desecuritization are tightly linked together, so that their security problem can not be separately analyzed or resolved. Security complex to a certain degree reflects the interdependence of security between states, although usually quite negatively. The interdependence composes a shared area of understanding to each other’s power and position, as well as an epistemic arena on the enemy or friend relations that shaped policymaking or security strategies.
3.3.3 what is Security Community?
Security community is the achievement of security within a region or among a group of states. It can either be geographically or socially organized, with the examples of the former like EU, ASEAN, and the latter such as transatlantic region. In the “pioneering 1957 study” by Karl Deutsch, the concept of security communities was for the first time entitled a whole set of theoretical and empirical vision. A security community was
60 Buzan, Waver & Wilde (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. P.31. 61 Ibid. P.5.
defined as a group of people that had become integrated to the point that, there is a “real assurance that the members of that community will not fight each other physically, but will settle their disputes in some other way.”62
Integration is the buzzword of regional studies especially relevant to EU. Regarding to the high-end politics of security, Deutsch observed that,
“by integration we mean the attainment, within a territory, of a ‘sense of community’ and of institutions and practices strong enough and widespread enough to assure for a long time, dependable expectations of ‘peaceful change’ among its population. By a ‘sense of community’ we mean a belief…that common social problems must and can be resolved by processes of ‘peaceful change’.63
This definition was then articulated into two types of security communities: “amalgamated and pluralistic security communities”64 by Deustch. Adler classified pluralistic security communities into two ideal types, loosely and tightly coupled one. Pluralistic security communities ‘retains the legal independence of separate governments”. By loosely-coupled pluralistic security communities, it means a transnational region compromised of sovereign states whose people maintain dependable expectations of peaceful changes.65 By tightly-coupled pluralistic security communities, it has two aspects: on the one hand, there is a “mutual aid” society in which the members build collective system; on the other hand, there is some rules special between national, international and transnational levels which form a “collective security system”.
62 Emanuel Adler & Michael Barnett. Security Communities in theoretical perspectives. Of Adler E. & Barnett M. (1998). P. 6.
63 Rosamond Ben (2000). Theories of European Integration. Hampshire: Palgrave. P.43.
64 Adler E. & Barnett M.(1998). Security Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. P.43. Deutsch thought pluralistic security communities were more stable than amalgamated ones. He argued that more “potential
destabilizing factors” would influence the amalgamated communities, such as increased military burdens, very rapid
increases in social mobilization and political participation within component units, relatively swift shifts in social differentiation, a decline in administrative capabilities, a closure of political elites and a dissonance between government action and societal expectations. Relatively impacting factors to pluralistic security communities only require three conditions to exist: compatibility of major values among the units, a capacity for politically relevant groups to respond to each other’s stimuli without violence and a mutual predictability of the relevant aspects of one another’s political, economic and social behaviour.
3.3.4 Logic of Community
The distinctive feature of security communities is that a stable peace is tied to the existence of a transnational community.66 A community is defined in three aspects: firstly, common language, common understanding and common meanings makes the basis of community; secondly, units in community encounter and interact in numerous settings; thirdly, reciprocity, long-term interests and altruism express the community spirit in knowledge of those whom one is interacting. By a sense of community, we refer to
A matter of mutual sympathy and loyalties; of “we feeling,” trust, and mutual consideration; of partial identification in terms of self-images and interests; of mutually successful predictions of behaviour… in short, a matter of a perpetual dynamic process of mutual attention, communication, perception of needs, and responsiveness in the process of decision making.67
By dependable expectation, it means dependable expectation from consistent identities and interests derived from environment or context of operation; by peaceful change it means member states neither expect nor prepare to solve interstate conflicts by organized violence between themselves.
The logic of community here is that, although actors may derive interests and beliefs from the social interaction of the groups, they may also keep producing distinct interests (out of identity) that possibly lead to competitive behavior and ultimately conflict. And for security communities, the critical question is how the assurance mechanism of war-avoid practices, such as legal provisions, institutions, rules, conventions, consensus works as resolution to conflicts.
3.3.5 How Security Communities Develop?
Security Communities eventually develop along logic of community that is based on shared meaning and understanding in a specific context of regional culture. Adler and Barnett developed an analytical three-tier model of the security communities development: (1) precipitating conditions; (2) process variables (transactions, organizations, and social learning) and structural variables (power and knowledge); and
66 Ibid. P. 31.
(3) mutual trust and collective identity.68 (See Figure 6.)
The first tier is marked with basic conditions that foster the emergence of security communities. These include broad environmental factors such as demographic or technological change, shifts in the global economy or alterations in the pattern of external threats.69 Besides the effects of globalization, it also incorporates the broad epistemic shift in the “development of new interpretations of social reality” and redefined threats and vulnerability. The second tier is a complex web made up of mixed-motives and power structures, interaction processes represented by institutions, organizations and socialization processes. Adler and Barnett paid attention to knowledge as the social structure that they refer to as “cognitive structures…shared meanings and understandings…part of what constitutes and constrains state action...as categories of practical action and legitimate activity”.70 The third tier, either as end point or the basis for next stage development of security communities, consists of mutual trust and collective identity among involved actors.
Herein the three tiers compose a full circle of confidence building mechanism in a scope of regional wide. With the foot rooted at communities, power and knowledge constitutively add dimension to the legitimate practices; however, whether the effect should arrive at mutual trust and collective identity will depend on the appropriate interpretation of changing environment and the path followed through interaction.
68 Adler E. & Barnett M. (1998). P.38. 69 Rosamond Ben (2000). P.170. 70 Adler E. & Barnett M. (1998). P.40.
Figure 6. The development of security communities71
Tier One
Precipitating conditions
1.Change in technology, demography, economics, the environment 2.Development of new interpretation of social reality
3.External threats
Tier Two
Factors conductive to the development of mutual trust and collective identity
Structure: Power Knowledge Process: Transactions Organizations Social Learning Tier Three
Necessary conditions of dependable expectations of peaceful change
Mutual trust Collective identity
Dependable Expectation of Peaceful Change
3.3.6 Criticism of Security Communities Framework
With rich empirical examples of regional cooperation beforehand, Liberal and Democracy values were found not necessarily to be exclusive and dominating for security communities building. As security communities possibly would also be a “war community”, whether liberal or democratic ideas are a mandate for security communities remains to be an area of further study.
Besides the hanging question of norms as regarding to security community, Whether the transition from security complex to security community is another question relevant to possible or feasible dependence not only on socialization, institutionalization, securitization, but most of all the willing and awareness of power, identity, historic relations and geopolitical interests. Security communities, by more focused at a regional level cooperation, somewhat ignores the limited space constraint by the power politics. Hence from this regards the further integration between new and old Member States
within EU boarders must coordinate overlapping and crossing interests, identities as well as historic relations from multiple level.
Furthermore, there are some other disadvantages of security communities studies, such as: institutionalization is good practice, but it is variant in extent in different precipitating context of security communities so that it causes a widened agenda of research in a wider social background; Mixed identities and interests in a same community network also create a rich however puzzling research ground; and it is hard to evaluate the degree of mutual trust and collective identity as well as how “dependable” the expectation of peaceful change would be for achieving a “real” security community, if any.
3.4 Theoretical Reflexivity: Sociological Institutionalism Works?
Institutions matter, in a configuration way it has impact on the political outcomes. By referring to rational starting engine, rational institutionalism (neorealism institutionalism and neoliberal institutionalism) model state behavior with motives of interests and the assurance of power. New institutionalism (NI) (see figure 7) claims more reasoning to the cognitive turn itself. Common institutional practices are said to emerge from a more interactive process of discussion among the actors in a given network -- about shared problems, how to interpret them, and how to solve them -- taking place in a variety of forums that range from business schools to international conclaves.72
Sociology’s institutionalism does not only claim social structure matters; they tell us what social structure is.73 Distinct with rational approach, sociological institutionalism offers three characteristics for analysis. First, it admits the marriage of institutions with culture. This has two important implications. First, it challenges the distinction that many political scientists like to draw between 'institutional explanations' based on organizational structures and 'cultural explanations' based on an understanding of culture as shared attitudes or values. 74 Second, this approach tends to redefine 'culture' itself as
72 Ibid.
73 Martha Finnemore, “Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s Institutionalism”, International Organization, Vol. 50, No.2 (Spring 1996). P.p. 325-34
74 Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture (Boston MA, Little Brown, 1963); Peter A. Hall, Governing the Economy (Oxford, Polity, 1986), ch. 1.
